|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27018 Posts
On April 29 2026 14:20 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2026 09:38 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 29 2026 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2026 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote] I was and still am happy to continue with you if you take a position supporting or opposing your opening premise. I didn't say you had to support your premise that "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government". I welcome you to give us your working definition of "legitimate government" regarding your position.
Again, this isn't some radical request by me, this is basic conversational conventions for effective communication "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes" This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first). Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! Thanks for this! Appreciate the direct response and engagement. I'd suggest simply supporting/enabling louder political voices. Propaganda's part of what gets us here. Could you describe what you mean by this a bit. I don't know that I've seen you do so before? Sure. There's a stigma regarding socialism or socialist movements in general. I don't believe that's rooted in truth, and the pervasive message that 'capitalism bad' exists in the general consciousness close enough to the surface that it shows up often in popular culture. Currently popular US figure Brennan Lee Mulligan is known to go on anticapitalist rants frequently, musical artist Blackalicious is an example of a musician who touches on the subject lyrically, etc. Luigi's assassination being celebrated has anticapitalist flair. There's no shortage of examples, those are two more or less at random. Anti-capitalism is not a wholly unpopular message, where socialism has stigma associated. I don't care what the thing is called, I care about what it's calling for. Social media platforms allow free speech and are responsive to profit/view-maximizing methods, which can be exploited to forward anti-capitalist messages. On a minimal level this is exploiting engagement methods - literally liking/upvoting/commenting/whatever. On a broader level, providing a gateway/backdoor to your preferred politics through content creators that aren't primarily political on the surface (Youtube shorts from Blackbirdcoop stand as an example, though not necessarily an anticapitalist one) which is a powerful tool to 'trick' people into agreeing with socialist methods while circumventing the stigma. It also gives clearer pathways to collaboration. TLDR we know a lot of the mindfuckery that leads people to believe flat earth. If you can make people believe flat earth, surely you could make them believe socialism. Weaponize it. Luigi also has an anti-propaganda aspect. I would definitely weigh the Luigi-love against its effect of pushing more normies away from socialism (back towards capitalism if we're talking a push-pull). Consider the normie reaction to the California warehouse arsonist and firebomber of Sam Altman, both referencing him. You might even call it counter-revolutionary. Then the issue among the more politically engaged is realizing how much mainstream socialists/prominent socialists that personally do not engage in violence also appear to shrug, or empathize, or refuse to condemn the Luigi-socialists that do. I'm speaking specifically into the negatives to the pros of " 'trick' people into agreeing with socialist methods" and "Luigi's assassination being celebrated has anticapitalist flair." I lean towards Luigi being a net negative to the socialists.
I don’t really think Luigi moved the needle much, if at all. More of an indicator than an influencer of public opinion IMO. Although difficult to actually gauge these kind of things
From a left perspective the reaction was quite ‘promising’ given how, unlike say, the Charlie Kirk killing, the celebratory/condemnatory lines were drawn on much less partisan lines. Plenty of conservative folks also went ‘fuck that guy’ as well. The kind of visceral reaction I don’t think you get unless people consider the conduct of the company you worked for as actually egregious
Now, I don’t think that means there’s a remote consensus to adopt a more left-leaning healthcare system, but perhaps a door has been left open to push that way. Or, alternatively to drive further reform and regulation that may still fall short of one’s ideals but is still an improvement.
As a more general observation, I don’t know if celebrating violence is all that big an influence on such things anyway. Going off intuition, may be entirely wrong. It feels more a stick to beat whatever the opposing side is when they do it than something that actually flips opinion
|
On April 30 2026 03:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2026 14:20 dyhb wrote:On April 29 2026 09:38 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 29 2026 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2026 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 13:16 Fleetfeet wrote:
[quote]
"Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence means we no longer have a "legitimate government" in your eyes"
This is obviously (to me) DPB offering to take what he understands to be your position as 'truth' for the purpose of furthering the discussion. Your response to this seems to be asserting that DPB's understanding of your position is ACTUALLY DPB's position, and then asking him to elaborate on 'his position' in this context and also explain the phrase 'legitimate government' that he used (which, actually, you used first).
Are these tactics you're using within, or without the scope of 'basic conversational conventions'? + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! Thanks for this! Appreciate the direct response and engagement. I'd suggest simply supporting/enabling louder political voices. Propaganda's part of what gets us here. Could you describe what you mean by this a bit. I don't know that I've seen you do so before? Sure. There's a stigma regarding socialism or socialist movements in general. I don't believe that's rooted in truth, and the pervasive message that 'capitalism bad' exists in the general consciousness close enough to the surface that it shows up often in popular culture. Currently popular US figure Brennan Lee Mulligan is known to go on anticapitalist rants frequently, musical artist Blackalicious is an example of a musician who touches on the subject lyrically, etc. Luigi's assassination being celebrated has anticapitalist flair. There's no shortage of examples, those are two more or less at random. Anti-capitalism is not a wholly unpopular message, where socialism has stigma associated. I don't care what the thing is called, I care about what it's calling for. Social media platforms allow free speech and are responsive to profit/view-maximizing methods, which can be exploited to forward anti-capitalist messages. On a minimal level this is exploiting engagement methods - literally liking/upvoting/commenting/whatever. On a broader level, providing a gateway/backdoor to your preferred politics through content creators that aren't primarily political on the surface (Youtube shorts from Blackbirdcoop stand as an example, though not necessarily an anticapitalist one) which is a powerful tool to 'trick' people into agreeing with socialist methods while circumventing the stigma. It also gives clearer pathways to collaboration. TLDR we know a lot of the mindfuckery that leads people to believe flat earth. If you can make people believe flat earth, surely you could make them believe socialism. Weaponize it. Luigi also has an anti-propaganda aspect. I would definitely weigh the Luigi-love against its effect of pushing more normies away from socialism (back towards capitalism if we're talking a push-pull). Consider the normie reaction to the California warehouse arsonist and firebomber of Sam Altman, both referencing him. You might even call it counter-revolutionary. Then the issue among the more politically engaged is realizing how much mainstream socialists/prominent socialists that personally do not engage in violence also appear to shrug, or empathize, or refuse to condemn the Luigi-socialists that do. I'm speaking specifically into the negatives to the pros of " 'trick' people into agreeing with socialist methods" and "Luigi's assassination being celebrated has anticapitalist flair." I lean towards Luigi being a net negative to the socialists. I don’t really think Luigi moved the needle much, if at all. More of an indicator than an influencer of public opinion IMO. Although difficult to actually gauge these kind of things From a left perspective the reaction was quite ‘promising’ given how, unlike say, the Charlie Kirk killing, the celebratory/condemnatory lines were drawn on much less partisan lines. Plenty of conservative folks also went ‘fuck that guy’ as well. The kind of visceral reaction I don’t think you get unless people consider the conduct of the company you worked for as actually egregious The gray area of killing, essentially, a dork that played debatelord against college students is nonexistent. Some people pretend it’s large, but it isn’t. A healthcare CEO is a lot more naturally hated, and there’s the undercurrent of everybody imagining that person in the place of the person that rejected their loved one’s claim. Still something bad to do, but less sympathetic.
Now, I don’t think that means there’s a remote consensus to adopt a more left-leaning healthcare system, but perhaps a door has been left open to push that way. Or, alternatively to drive further reform and regulation that may still fall short of one’s ideals but is still an improvement.
As a more general observation, I don’t know if celebrating violence is all that big an influence on such things anyway. Going off intuition, may be entirely wrong. It feels more a stick to beat whatever the opposing side is when they do it than something that actually flips opinion Its more anecdotal than evidence-based, but I think people are undervaluing how their political opposites, and the highly politically disengaged, treat violence like Luigi and lionization of Luigi. I do agree with you in small effect, but disagree with OP in placing that in the pro-socialist development (GH socialist revolution context). You’re embittering more than you’re rallying, even if both groups are relatively small.
|
On April 30 2026 03:58 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 03:40 WombaT wrote:On April 29 2026 14:20 dyhb wrote:On April 29 2026 09:38 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 29 2026 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2026 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 16:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] + Show Spoiler +You're correct with all of this.
It's his "opening premise", not mine, and I was happy to engage with it. He brought it up, not me. In fact, while I was able to elaborate on my interest in considering how effective a president is (responding to GH's comment about a naked crack addict), I freely admitted that I don't have an immediate, good answer as to what line delegitimizes a presidency, but I was content to work off the premise he had suggested to move the conversation forward (GH wrote "Trump having a 2nd term instead of a prison sentence should be enough for most rational people imo" and I accepted that). That premise was fine with me, + Show Spoiler + which is why I followed up with all the questions that GH repeatedly refused to answer, which then prompted others to call him out. Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case: What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate? Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that. I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! Thanks for this! Appreciate the direct response and engagement. I'd suggest simply supporting/enabling louder political voices. Propaganda's part of what gets us here. Could you describe what you mean by this a bit. I don't know that I've seen you do so before? Sure. There's a stigma regarding socialism or socialist movements in general. I don't believe that's rooted in truth, and the pervasive message that 'capitalism bad' exists in the general consciousness close enough to the surface that it shows up often in popular culture. Currently popular US figure Brennan Lee Mulligan is known to go on anticapitalist rants frequently, musical artist Blackalicious is an example of a musician who touches on the subject lyrically, etc. Luigi's assassination being celebrated has anticapitalist flair. There's no shortage of examples, those are two more or less at random. Anti-capitalism is not a wholly unpopular message, where socialism has stigma associated. I don't care what the thing is called, I care about what it's calling for. Social media platforms allow free speech and are responsive to profit/view-maximizing methods, which can be exploited to forward anti-capitalist messages. On a minimal level this is exploiting engagement methods - literally liking/upvoting/commenting/whatever. On a broader level, providing a gateway/backdoor to your preferred politics through content creators that aren't primarily political on the surface (Youtube shorts from Blackbirdcoop stand as an example, though not necessarily an anticapitalist one) which is a powerful tool to 'trick' people into agreeing with socialist methods while circumventing the stigma. It also gives clearer pathways to collaboration. TLDR we know a lot of the mindfuckery that leads people to believe flat earth. If you can make people believe flat earth, surely you could make them believe socialism. Weaponize it. Luigi also has an anti-propaganda aspect. I would definitely weigh the Luigi-love against its effect of pushing more normies away from socialism (back towards capitalism if we're talking a push-pull). Consider the normie reaction to the California warehouse arsonist and firebomber of Sam Altman, both referencing him. You might even call it counter-revolutionary. Then the issue among the more politically engaged is realizing how much mainstream socialists/prominent socialists that personally do not engage in violence also appear to shrug, or empathize, or refuse to condemn the Luigi-socialists that do. I'm speaking specifically into the negatives to the pros of " 'trick' people into agreeing with socialist methods" and "Luigi's assassination being celebrated has anticapitalist flair." I lean towards Luigi being a net negative to the socialists. I don’t really think Luigi moved the needle much, if at all. More of an indicator than an influencer of public opinion IMO. Although difficult to actually gauge these kind of things From a left perspective the reaction was quite ‘promising’ given how, unlike say, the Charlie Kirk killing, the celebratory/condemnatory lines were drawn on much less partisan lines. Plenty of conservative folks also went ‘fuck that guy’ as well. The kind of visceral reaction I don’t think you get unless people consider the conduct of the company you worked for as actually egregious The gray area of killing, essentially, a dork that played debatelord against college students is nonexistent. Some people pretend it’s large, but it isn’t. A healthcare CEO is a lot more naturally hated, and there’s the undercurrent of everybody imagining that person in the place of the person that rejected their loved one’s claim. Still something bad to do, but less sympathetic. Show nested quote +Now, I don’t think that means there’s a remote consensus to adopt a more left-leaning healthcare system, but perhaps a door has been left open to push that way. Or, alternatively to drive further reform and regulation that may still fall short of one’s ideals but is still an improvement.
As a more general observation, I don’t know if celebrating violence is all that big an influence on such things anyway. Going off intuition, may be entirely wrong. It feels more a stick to beat whatever the opposing side is when they do it than something that actually flips opinion Its more anecdotal than evidence-based, but I think people are undervaluing how their political opposites, and the highly politically disengaged, treat violence like Luigi and lionization of Luigi. I do agree with you in small effect, but disagree with OP in placing that in the pro-socialist development (GH socialist revolution context). You’re embittering more than you’re rallying, even if both groups are relatively small.
For clarity - I wasn't bringing it up as pro-socialism. I was bringing it up as an example of anti-corporation / anti-capitalist sentiment in the US / western public.
I don't think murdering CEOs is a good thing, but if shit is fucked up enough that people can/do murder CEOs and are generally positively received for that action, that strikes me as a pretty good sign that there's some tension and frustration regarding whatever that CEO was perceived to stand for.
There being anti-capitalist sentiment in the US is 'good for socialism' insofar as socialism and capitalism exist at odds (in my understanding of GH's paradigm, at least?).
|
On April 30 2026 04:06 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 03:58 dyhb wrote:On April 30 2026 03:40 WombaT wrote:On April 29 2026 14:20 dyhb wrote:On April 29 2026 09:38 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 29 2026 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 29 2026 04:20 Fleetfeet wrote:On April 28 2026 23:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2026 19:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 28 2026 17:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Typically I'd ask if you or someone else could try rewriting the questions/engaging as someone that actually personally agrees Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure. That's because if you're going to actually concede the point to move the conversation forward, you have to actually do so in your phrasing. I'll just demonstrate myself what that looks like in this case:
[quote]
Keep in mind, you're not obligated to accept the premise "Trump's government is illegitimate by any reasonable measure" to continue the conversation. But if you're going (to even pretend for the sake of moving the conversation forward) to agree, your questions have to change to something like what I just showed to reflect that.
I believe I am communicating this issue clearly at this point. What are your answers to those rephrased questions? [What do we do about that? What is the action taken that follows the government no longer being legitimate?] We need to work on that together while organizing with other like-minded people. I come at it through a Black Radical Tradition lens but the general tenets (the details of which being what we need to work on together among like-minded people since this is a bottom up project) of what needs to be done are pretty universal from what I understand. -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) Exactly how any individual can help most effectively necessarily varies based on a variety of factors, but those are the general things I believe we need to be working on. It's not a comprehensive list. Rather than be critical of anything I've said (don't worry, there will be time for that), let's keep a bit of a brainstorming energy going and we can all contribute our own ideas! Thanks for this! Appreciate the direct response and engagement. I'd suggest simply supporting/enabling louder political voices. Propaganda's part of what gets us here. Could you describe what you mean by this a bit. I don't know that I've seen you do so before? Sure. There's a stigma regarding socialism or socialist movements in general. I don't believe that's rooted in truth, and the pervasive message that 'capitalism bad' exists in the general consciousness close enough to the surface that it shows up often in popular culture. Currently popular US figure Brennan Lee Mulligan is known to go on anticapitalist rants frequently, musical artist Blackalicious is an example of a musician who touches on the subject lyrically, etc. Luigi's assassination being celebrated has anticapitalist flair. There's no shortage of examples, those are two more or less at random. Anti-capitalism is not a wholly unpopular message, where socialism has stigma associated. I don't care what the thing is called, I care about what it's calling for. Social media platforms allow free speech and are responsive to profit/view-maximizing methods, which can be exploited to forward anti-capitalist messages. On a minimal level this is exploiting engagement methods - literally liking/upvoting/commenting/whatever. On a broader level, providing a gateway/backdoor to your preferred politics through content creators that aren't primarily political on the surface (Youtube shorts from Blackbirdcoop stand as an example, though not necessarily an anticapitalist one) which is a powerful tool to 'trick' people into agreeing with socialist methods while circumventing the stigma. It also gives clearer pathways to collaboration. TLDR we know a lot of the mindfuckery that leads people to believe flat earth. If you can make people believe flat earth, surely you could make them believe socialism. Weaponize it. Luigi also has an anti-propaganda aspect. I would definitely weigh the Luigi-love against its effect of pushing more normies away from socialism (back towards capitalism if we're talking a push-pull). Consider the normie reaction to the California warehouse arsonist and firebomber of Sam Altman, both referencing him. You might even call it counter-revolutionary. Then the issue among the more politically engaged is realizing how much mainstream socialists/prominent socialists that personally do not engage in violence also appear to shrug, or empathize, or refuse to condemn the Luigi-socialists that do. I'm speaking specifically into the negatives to the pros of " 'trick' people into agreeing with socialist methods" and "Luigi's assassination being celebrated has anticapitalist flair." I lean towards Luigi being a net negative to the socialists. I don’t really think Luigi moved the needle much, if at all. More of an indicator than an influencer of public opinion IMO. Although difficult to actually gauge these kind of things From a left perspective the reaction was quite ‘promising’ given how, unlike say, the Charlie Kirk killing, the celebratory/condemnatory lines were drawn on much less partisan lines. Plenty of conservative folks also went ‘fuck that guy’ as well. The kind of visceral reaction I don’t think you get unless people consider the conduct of the company you worked for as actually egregious The gray area of killing, essentially, a dork that played debatelord against college students is nonexistent. Some people pretend it’s large, but it isn’t. A healthcare CEO is a lot more naturally hated, and there’s the undercurrent of everybody imagining that person in the place of the person that rejected their loved one’s claim. Still something bad to do, but less sympathetic. Now, I don’t think that means there’s a remote consensus to adopt a more left-leaning healthcare system, but perhaps a door has been left open to push that way. Or, alternatively to drive further reform and regulation that may still fall short of one’s ideals but is still an improvement.
As a more general observation, I don’t know if celebrating violence is all that big an influence on such things anyway. Going off intuition, may be entirely wrong. It feels more a stick to beat whatever the opposing side is when they do it than something that actually flips opinion Its more anecdotal than evidence-based, but I think people are undervaluing how their political opposites, and the highly politically disengaged, treat violence like Luigi and lionization of Luigi. I do agree with you in small effect, but disagree with OP in placing that in the pro-socialist development (GH socialist revolution context). You’re embittering more than you’re rallying, even if both groups are relatively small. For clarity - I wasn't bringing it up as pro-socialism. I was bringing it up as an example of anti-corporation / anti-capitalist sentiment in the US / western public. I don't think murdering CEOs is a good thing, but if shit is fucked up enough that people can/do murder CEOs and are generally positively received for that action, that strikes me as a pretty good sign that there's some tension and frustration regarding whatever that CEO was perceived to stand for. There being anti-capitalist sentiment in the US is 'good for socialism' insofar as socialism and capitalism exist at odds (in my understanding of GH's paradigm, at least?).
His case is a bit specific as my understanding is that he killed someone whose job was directly involved in the death of people being denied access to affordable healthcare. From that point of view it can seem justified, but in the greater picture it doesn't really affect the root of the problem which can only be changed through collective consensus and action from someone having the legislative authority.
Maybe one needs to develop a mind control brain worm or a vodoo ritual with which to take control of Trump (at least to find a basic solution to allowing low income people to enjoy some services, but in the US it's probably standard to just make them soldiers).
After doing the golden dome he could invent Hartz 5 and loudly proclaim he's better than Germany.
|
On April 30 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:Rest in peace, Louisiana's 6th district. Louisiana was originally forced to change the majority-minority district to comply with the Voting Rights Act Section 2, as previously interpreted, to avoid the diluting of minority votes. Now, under the new tests, it doesn't pass the strict scrutiny required to permissibly discriminate on the basis of race. This is the so-called racial gerrymander, and now it's an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 5/10 on the wildness scale of gerrymanders Alito delivered the opinion of the 6-member majority, and Kagan's dissent is pretty biting for those that like reading that sort of thing. + Show Spoiler +In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. The decision here is about Louisiana’s District 6. But so too it is about Louisiana’s District 2. See supra, at 33–34. And so too it is about the many other districts, particularly in the South, that in the last half-century have given minority citizens, and particularly African Americans, a meaningful political voice. You can bet this decision is on the chopping block if and when the Democrats can appoint a majority on the Supreme Court that think like Kagan-Sotomayor-Jackson. The full decision is a bit of a slog, but it preserves some bans on racist gerrymandering motivated by discriminatory purpose (the 15th amendment). Of course, the debate is ongoing on what constitutes districts drawn for a racially discriminatory purpose and what lawful steps a legislature can undertake to correct those alleged districts.
If that's 5/10 what's higher?
|
On April 30 2026 05:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:Rest in peace, Louisiana's 6th district. Louisiana was originally forced to change the majority-minority district to comply with the Voting Rights Act Section 2, as previously interpreted, to avoid the diluting of minority votes. Now, under the new tests, it doesn't pass the strict scrutiny required to permissibly discriminate on the basis of race. This is the so-called racial gerrymander, and now it's an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 5/10 on the wildness scale of gerrymanders Alito delivered the opinion of the 6-member majority, and Kagan's dissent is pretty biting for those that like reading that sort of thing. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter. + Show Spoiler +In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. The decision here is about Louisiana’s District 6. But so too it is about Louisiana’s District 2. See supra, at 33–34. And so too it is about the many other districts, particularly in the South, that in the last half-century have given minority citizens, and particularly African Americans, a meaningful political voice. You can bet this decision is on the chopping block if and when the Democrats can appoint a majority on the Supreme Court that think like Kagan-Sotomayor-Jackson. The full decision is a bit of a slog, but it preserves some bans on racist gerrymandering motivated by discriminatory purpose (the 15th amendment). Of course, the debate is ongoing on what constitutes districts drawn for a racially discriminatory purpose and what lawful steps a legislature can undertake to correct those alleged districts. If that's 5/10 what's higher? I’ll give you two standout winners:
+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +
The backslash can’t hold a candle to the pterodactyl or the earmuff.
|
That can't be real. Are those real? How does anyone justify that stuff? Or do they not even try?
Also, i am not 100% certain where you see a pterodactyl in there.
But yeah, this is what i meant with "elections in the US are way too much of a game that people play to win." Every time someone does something this obviously shady to win, the whole of democracy loses legitimacy.
|
On April 30 2026 05:54 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 05:15 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:Rest in peace, Louisiana's 6th district. Louisiana was originally forced to change the majority-minority district to comply with the Voting Rights Act Section 2, as previously interpreted, to avoid the diluting of minority votes. Now, under the new tests, it doesn't pass the strict scrutiny required to permissibly discriminate on the basis of race. This is the so-called racial gerrymander, and now it's an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 5/10 on the wildness scale of gerrymanders Alito delivered the opinion of the 6-member majority, and Kagan's dissent is pretty biting for those that like reading that sort of thing. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter. + Show Spoiler +In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. The decision here is about Louisiana’s District 6. But so too it is about Louisiana’s District 2. See supra, at 33–34. And so too it is about the many other districts, particularly in the South, that in the last half-century have given minority citizens, and particularly African Americans, a meaningful political voice. You can bet this decision is on the chopping block if and when the Democrats can appoint a majority on the Supreme Court that think like Kagan-Sotomayor-Jackson. The full decision is a bit of a slog, but it preserves some bans on racist gerrymandering motivated by discriminatory purpose (the 15th amendment). Of course, the debate is ongoing on what constitutes districts drawn for a racially discriminatory purpose and what lawful steps a legislature can undertake to correct those alleged districts. If that's 5/10 what's higher? I’ll give you two standout winners: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The backslash can’t hold a candle to the pterodactyl or the earmuff.
That's actually insane. Thanks for sharing.
|
On April 30 2026 06:02 Simberto wrote:
That can't be real. Are those real? How does anyone justify that stuff? Or do they not even try?
Also, i am not 100% certain where you see a pterodactyl in there. They’re real.
You can go winged serpent, profile view. I’ve also heard that. The name is from a half-remembered news story from yesteryear (the two injured wings trail to the right of the creature, whose main body is on the left and might be diving to the bottom right). What do you see?
|
On April 30 2026 06:56 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 06:02 Simberto wrote:
That can't be real. Are those real? How does anyone justify that stuff? Or do they not even try?
Also, i am not 100% certain where you see a pterodactyl in there. They’re real. You can go winged serpent, profile view. The name is from a half-remembered news story from yesteryear. What do you see?
I'd say the purple one is angry anime ghost girl in a fight. The second one looks a lot like some ship from Freespace in profile view. But i guess they are just Rorschach tests.
|
On April 30 2026 05:54 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 05:15 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:Rest in peace, Louisiana's 6th district. Louisiana was originally forced to change the majority-minority district to comply with the Voting Rights Act Section 2, as previously interpreted, to avoid the diluting of minority votes. Now, under the new tests, it doesn't pass the strict scrutiny required to permissibly discriminate on the basis of race. This is the so-called racial gerrymander, and now it's an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 5/10 on the wildness scale of gerrymanders Alito delivered the opinion of the 6-member majority, and Kagan's dissent is pretty biting for those that like reading that sort of thing. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter. + Show Spoiler +In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. The decision here is about Louisiana’s District 6. But so too it is about Louisiana’s District 2. See supra, at 33–34. And so too it is about the many other districts, particularly in the South, that in the last half-century have given minority citizens, and particularly African Americans, a meaningful political voice. You can bet this decision is on the chopping block if and when the Democrats can appoint a majority on the Supreme Court that think like Kagan-Sotomayor-Jackson. The full decision is a bit of a slog, but it preserves some bans on racist gerrymandering motivated by discriminatory purpose (the 15th amendment). Of course, the debate is ongoing on what constitutes districts drawn for a racially discriminatory purpose and what lawful steps a legislature can undertake to correct those alleged districts. If that's 5/10 what's higher? I’ll give you two standout winners: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The backslash can’t hold a candle to the pterodactyl or the earmuff.
The Illinois one is the 4th congressional district. It has been gerrymandered to put mostly Hispanic neighborhoods together. So it has that ridiculous shape in order to enfranchise more voters rather than disenfranchise them. The large chunk in the middle is a mostly black area, so we retain that to ensure that the black people in that area are better enfranchised.
Now if you ask me, it's all a bunch of racist nonsense and I'd rather see something like shortest split line implemented.
+ Show Spoiler +
I don't see why a white guy can't be represented by a black guy or vice versa. If they're your neighbors, they should be able to represent you, no matter their race. If the system is fair and not split up by some weasel, I don't mind if my rep is black/white/hispanic/asian/middle-eastern/other. If that's what the people in my fairly drawn district want, then I will just have to accept that. It's when I know that I'm purposely being drawn into some district by a person with an agenda that I would have a problem.
|
An independent committee that handled all this with fair rules across the country is the simple solution. However, since independent doesn’t exist in the US, it wouldn’t work. Not to mention somehow these people would be “lobbied” (bribed) into one side or the other.
There will be no fairness in the US as long as you have the requirement of massive money to run campaigns and a whole bunch of “rules” that make bribing people legal and good business.
|
On April 30 2026 07:08 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 05:54 dyhb wrote:On April 30 2026 05:15 oBlade wrote:On April 30 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:Rest in peace, Louisiana's 6th district. Louisiana was originally forced to change the majority-minority district to comply with the Voting Rights Act Section 2, as previously interpreted, to avoid the diluting of minority votes. Now, under the new tests, it doesn't pass the strict scrutiny required to permissibly discriminate on the basis of race. This is the so-called racial gerrymander, and now it's an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. 5/10 on the wildness scale of gerrymanders Alito delivered the opinion of the 6-member majority, and Kagan's dissent is pretty biting for those that like reading that sort of thing. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter. + Show Spoiler +In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. The decision here is about Louisiana’s District 6. But so too it is about Louisiana’s District 2. See supra, at 33–34. And so too it is about the many other districts, particularly in the South, that in the last half-century have given minority citizens, and particularly African Americans, a meaningful political voice. You can bet this decision is on the chopping block if and when the Democrats can appoint a majority on the Supreme Court that think like Kagan-Sotomayor-Jackson. The full decision is a bit of a slog, but it preserves some bans on racist gerrymandering motivated by discriminatory purpose (the 15th amendment). Of course, the debate is ongoing on what constitutes districts drawn for a racially discriminatory purpose and what lawful steps a legislature can undertake to correct those alleged districts. If that's 5/10 what's higher? I’ll give you two standout winners: + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +The backslash can’t hold a candle to the pterodactyl or the earmuff. The Illinois one is the 4th congressional district. It has been gerrymandered to put mostly Hispanic neighborhoods together. So it has that ridiculous shape in order to enfranchise more voters rather than disenfranchise them. The large chunk in the middle is a mostly black area, so we retain that to ensure that the black people in that area are better enfranchised. Now if you ask me, it's all a bunch of racist nonsense and I'd rather see something like shortest split line implemented. I’m sympathetic to both views, because you can go too far into neglecting local area representation by going far-but-racially-similar (y’all Hispanics all vote the same, ¿sí?) and too far into saying 55% X exists as a voting block and 40% Y is another voting block too bad sucks to be you in this compact district.
|
Canada11559 Posts
Yeah, those lines are travesties, and I have no sympathy for the reasoning that creates them. I don't know what it would take to get independent commissions across every State, but legal gerrymandering is a terrible vortex for the American electoral system.
You might get strange squiggly lines out in the country due to low population density and terrain features like mountains or rivers make for more natural geographic groupings. But by the time you get to high density cities, there is no reason why there should be anything other than ordinary looking blobs/ blocks, grouping approximately 760K people together.
https://www.elections.ca/res/cir/mapsCorner/10_BC/3Cit/Vancouver/Vancouver.jpg
For us the main criteria is grouping 100K people +/- 25%
Followed by:
-grouping communities of interest or identity
-historical patterns of previous boundaries- throw that one out for the US because so many historical boundaries were gerrymandered
-manageable geographic size
So the Fraser River forms a natural split. You will see more Indians/ Sikhs within the Surrey district, but you don't need to lasso them with squiggly lines that hop roads and lasso another group into some horrible horseshoe. Boundaries that look vaguely squarish or rectangular work perfectly fine. It's just when you go rural you might end up with parts of the mainland grouped with some islands due to low density.
|
On April 30 2026 10:50 Falling wrote:Yeah, those lines are travesties, and I have no sympathy for the reasoning that creates them. I don't know what it would take to get independent commissions across every State, but legal gerrymandering is a terrible vortex for the American electoral system. You might get strange squiggly lines out in the country due to low population density and terrain features like mountains or rivers make for more natural geographic groupings. But by the time you get to high density cities, there is no reason why there should be anything other than ordinary looking blobs/ blocks, grouping approximately 760K people together. https://www.elections.ca/res/cir/mapsCorner/10_BC/3Cit/Vancouver/Vancouver.jpgFor us the main criteria is grouping 100K people +/- 25% Followed by: -grouping communities of interest or identity -historical patterns of previous boundaries- throw that one out for the US because so many historical boundaries were gerrymandered -manageable geographic size So the Fraser River forms a natural split. You will see more Indians/ Sikhs within the Surrey district, but you don't need to lasso them with squiggly lines that hop roads and lasso another group into some horrible horseshoe. Boundaries that look vaguely squarish or rectangular work perfectly fine. It's just when you go rural you might end up with parts of the mainland grouped with some islands due to low density.
Many "independent commissions" end up being stacked. California, NY, and I think NJ have all had that happen. The California lines before the last gerrymander were already bad.
Also, my understanding is that the US has much more strict rules on district population. For you 25% sounds good but I think down here it's something like 1% or more has to have a very good reason. I think this is Court precedent? It sounds absurd considering the geography.
|
Canada11559 Posts
Well, to be fair the numbers swing more with bigger numbers, so it make sense to narrow the range. +/-25K vs +/-190K is no joke. But I don't think there is much incentive for true independent commissions when over half don't even pretend are outright partisan controlled redistricting.
|
On April 30 2026 01:42 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 01:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 29 2026 11:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 29 2026 11:01 ETisME wrote:
All system is a mixed system. Crying about capitalism is anti intellectual, perhaps except communism because it literally doesn't work if we go by the strict definition. Yeah, it's a spectrum, anti-capitalism is advocacy to move towards the collectivized end of the spectrum because the current status quo isn't working. It’s not even a spectrum. Norway is extremely capitalist in many ways and extremely “socialist” in others. People who yell about socialism know they are using a word that is totally meaningless in today’s political discourse. On the right, you have the “if you want free healthcare, you want Venezuela” and on the left, well, you have people who don’t have a clue what they actually want so they use the word as a slogan, without ever saying if they want Denmark or a marxist utopia. I don't understand how any of this implies it isn't a spectrum. Show nested quote +(That has been my problem with Bernie: he wants Denmark but he is selling The Revolution to his coffeehouse revolutionaries by using a word he knows everybody understands differently.)
Use words such as social democracy, and leave “socialism” where it belongs: to demagogues and loonies. This is on purpose. A lesser reason is because "social democracy" isn't really a term in Americans' vocabulary unless they closely follow international news/history and therefore are nerds (complimentary), but the main reason is because it's a backlash against a century of "but that's socialism!" being used to decry everything to the left of hunting the homeless for sport. It's intentionally weaponizing the fact that conservatives misuse the term. In meme form: + Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +On April 29 2026 14:48 ETisME wrote:On April 29 2026 11:41 LightSpectra wrote:On April 29 2026 11:01 ETisME wrote:
All system is a mixed system. Crying about capitalism is anti intellectual, perhaps except communism because it literally doesn't work if we go by the strict definition. Yeah, it's a spectrum, anti-capitalism is advocacy to move towards the collectivized end of the spectrum because the current status quo isn't working. The US doesn't stop any company to become a more equal ownership for workers and management. And 401k is pretty much tied to how well these companies are doing, and they are doing very well globally. You have states like California raising tax on super rich and now in potential financial crisis. You have social security schemes being exposed as massive fraud. Again if you or someone don't see it as a legitimate government (lol), stop paying tax, go to the court and say you don't follow law from an illegitimate regime. That's how things get put right. Socialism or not, more worker right movement or public health care etc were never out of spotlight, so this really is nothing new. I literally have no idea what you're talking about, did you respond to the wrong person? The only thing I want to respond to is California is weathering this financial storm a lot better than most other states are, despite the federal government intentionally picking a fight with them in every way possible. Raising taxes on the wealthy is one of the smartest things they could decide to do. Are you aware this is currently working to get on the ballot and hasn't actually passed yet? Because you're talking about it like it already exists and has resulted in something bad.
It’s not a spectrum in the sense that it’s not one dimensional.
It’s not just about how socialist or how capitalist, but what you are talking about. Are you talking about social safety net? Are we talking about regulations over businesses?
So like, France is way more “socialist” than Norway because Norwegian regulations on the private sector and the employment market are much looser and much more business friendly, but Norway is much more “socialist” than France because the social security is much stronger and the state interveens much more in your everyday life.
You not only are there quantitative differences there, but also qualitative ones. And again, that’s never really mention by the people who like to use the word, because again, it’s a word that is completely blurry and ideologically charged by design.
Social democracy means something, it’s a model. Socialism doesn’t mean anything, it’s a slogan.
|
|
|
On April 30 2026 14:29 Falling wrote:
Well, to be fair the numbers swing more with bigger numbers, so it make sense to narrow the range. +/-25K vs +/-190K is no joke. But I don't think there is much incentive for true independent commissions when over half don't even pretend are outright partisan controlled redistricting.
This sounds like a problem that could be solved by a mathematical algorithm. If you set up one simple criterium for districting. Something like "minimize total border length while dividing this state into X areas with equal amounts of people."
Of course, then you get to the question of "who gets to define the exact criteria" and "who chooses the algorithm", which still involve room for foul play. And you can't have things like historic borders or natural borders. But everything is better than whatever the fuck this shit is going on in the US.
Another advantage of a mathematical criterium would be that it is easily verifiable if some other solution is better than the proposed one.
Or, of course, you set up the system so that the districts don't matter this much. In Germany we also have districts which elect people, but only half the Bundestag comes from these districts. The rest is filled via party lists, and the total amount of people allowed in the Bundestag per party is proportional to their percentage in the popular vote. There are some additional rules for what to do if a party gets more districts then their percentage share of the popular vote, but generally this means that it doesn't actually matter that much how districts are set up, because ultimately the power of a party is based in the popular vote. Removes all of this fuckery.
|
On April 30 2026 17:06 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2026 14:29 Falling wrote:
Well, to be fair the numbers swing more with bigger numbers, so it make sense to narrow the range. +/-25K vs +/-190K is no joke. But I don't think there is much incentive for true independent commissions when over half don't even pretend are outright partisan controlled redistricting. This sounds like a problem that could be solved by a mathematical algorithm. If you set up one simple criterium for districting. Something like "minimize total border length while dividing this state into X areas with equal amounts of people." Of course, then you get to the question of "who gets to define the exact criteria" and "who chooses the algorithm", which still involve room for foul play. And you can't have things like historic borders or natural borders. But everything is better than whatever the fuck this shit is going on in the US. Another advantage of a mathematical criterium would be that it is easily verifiable if some other solution is better than the proposed one. Or, of course, you set up the system so that the districts don't matter this much. In Germany we also have districts which elect people, but only half the Bundestag comes from these districts. The rest is filled via party lists, and the total amount of people allowed in the Bundestag per party is proportional to their percentage in the popular vote. There are some additional rules for what to do if a party gets more districts then their percentage share of the popular vote, but generally this means that it doesn't actually matter that much how districts are set up, because ultimately the power of a party is based in the popular vote. Removes all of this fuckery.
And introduces other ones. As like people who no one would ever vote for getting into Bundestag, or possibility that guy who won his constituency wont get a seat, but the guy who lost to him will.
Edit: changed "End" to "And".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Louisiana%27s_6th_congressional_district_%28since_2025%29.svg/3840px-Louisiana%27s_6th_congressional_district_%28since_2025%29.svg.png)
![[image loading]](https://dfjggrspmdbnjf.archive.is/mCQp0/89bb9c92dcec9a0865a6faf0dd4fb0fafbd61c54.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://images.theconversation.com/files/193859/original/file-20171108-14205-190ar5y.jpg?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=75&auto=format&w=768&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1)
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/r5fb0ovwzh131.jpg)
